ArticleBMC health services research2020
Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility, efficacy and effectiveness of community health worker-facilitated hearing aid provision: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of hearing loss on annual incident age-associated dementia cases and quality of life in the United States.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
- Impact of hearing aid usage on the quality of life of the older adult in KwaZulu-Natal.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of hearing aid use and quality of life in older adults with hearing impairment in India.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Hearing Aids in South Korea: A Multistate Markov Model Analysis.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Potential Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in the US.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2023Article
- Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
- A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Asia: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).
methodsParticipants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.
resultsThere were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.
conclusionsHA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.